The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After 11 days, the comments are pretty evenly split between keep, delete, and redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This AfD concerns a man who is claimed to have invented first successful airplane 8 years before Wright Brothers. These non-existing claims are limited to non-RS fringe sources while the subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada. That's why I think we have a case for deletion.

When I attempted to search details about this person from the period before propaganda wave, I could find nothing.[1] It was mainly after the release of the 2015 movie, Hawaizaada that he started receiving substantial coverage.

My research has been also confirmed by this source:-

"Among the believers of the Hindu right, this absence of evidence is attributed to British control over the media, which seemingly edited Talpade’s invention out of history. But reports of the flight that do exist began proliferating just over a century later, in the 2000s, at the beginning of the fertile, ongoing period of the expansion of the economy and the reinvention of the Indian past."[2] Editorkamran (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article accurately debunks the claims, so what's the issue here? Better keep it in it's current state and put it on watchlists than delete it and wait for some nationalist to come back, create it, and fill it with fringe-POV. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for fact-checking. The only claim for which reliable sources exist is that this person did not invent airplane. But for that we already have Hawaizaada movie article. This person is not notable and inherited little notability from that movie. Editorkamran (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the pre-movie version [3] there are sufficent pre-movie sources to establish notability. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ok, User:Vanamonde93 has convinced me about the sources he mentioned and the need to have this article. The Deccan Herald is not a fringe news outlet, WP:HISTRS is irrelevant here. Being published after the movie was released is irrelevant and not policy or guideline based. It certainly meets WP:GNG. @Editorkamran: I don't need or want a reply. I think you've made your point clear.
@Doug Weller: See my review of all of those sources:
  • 1st source is a Deccan Herald article, it fails WP:HISTRS. It claims "As the world rightly honours the Wright Brothers for their achievements, we should think of Talpade, who utilised the ancient knowledge of Sanskrit texts, to fly an aircraft, eight years before his foreign counterparts." It is unreliable and also WP:FRINGE.
  • 2nd source is Sentinels of the Sky. Air Headquarter, Indian Air Force p. 2, 1999, which says "Based on these instructions, a fly - worthy machine was reportedly reconstructed by a native of Maharashtra Shri Bapuji Talpade and a demonstration of manned flight was conducted in Mumbai sometime in 1895."[4] But it was unmanned right? This source also fails WP:HISTRS and it is promoting WP:FRINGE views.
  • 3rd is Asia: Asian Quarterly of Culture and Synthesis, American Asiatic Association, Published 1942, Page 40 but I cannot find this source anywhere.
  • 4th source is A flight over Chowpatty that made history[5] which says "In 1895 an Indian pioneer flew what is said to be the first Indian plane in the air. The centenary year of the first successful flight, by the Wright brothers, was celebrated from December 17, 2003. But our own pioneer from Mumbai, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, made an aircraft and had flown it eight years earlier." Again, the violation of WP:HISTRS and WP:FRINGE.
  • 5th source is "Pratāpa Velakara, Pāṭhāre prabhūñcā itihāsa: nāmavanta lekhakāñcyā sas̃́odhanātmaka likhāṇāsaha", by an unreliable publisher.
  • 6th source is "A flight over Chowpatty that made history," which I already analyzed above.
  • 7th source is "Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Volume 69. The Institute. 1989. p. 365." but the source does not support the information.[6][7][8]
  • 8th one is Mukunda, H.S. (1974). "A critical study of the work "Vyamanika Shastra"" but this source only says "Dr. Talpade (of Bombay) tried to make models under the guidance of Shastriji, but that he was not successful in making any of then fly."[9] This is just a passing mention.
  • 9th and the final source is Rosen. 2010 but this source is published by far-right publisher Arktos Media. This book is merely repeating the debunked claim thus it is not reliable.[10]
None of these sources satisfy the requirement of WP:GNG. The subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Editorkamran (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fact-checking website.
This subject fails WP:GNG because all of the coverage constituting more than a passing mention comes from fringe unreliable sources before the movie was released. The reliable sources that have provided more than a passing mention to this subject are only focused on disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie. Historians are still unwilling to provide any coverage to this subject but this absence cannot be overlooked since this is a historical subject.
The subject can be limited to Hawaizaada, where it is already described that this subject lacks authenticity. Editorkamran (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to discount coverage of the historical events (or ahistoricity of the events) just because it's from after the movie. The movie drew attention to this narrative. The sources cover it. [11] [12] and [13] are not espousing any fringe nonsense, and provide substantive coverage of the topic; and they only tangentially refer to the movie. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:, as it's one of the rare occasions we disagree; I feel the movie article cannot cover the entire narrative (including the history of its supposed discovery and debunking) in as much detail as is warranted; and we have sources, linked above. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are news sources, they don't meet WP:HISTRS as required for this historical subject. They were created in the light of the movie Hawaizaada for rejecting the false claim that the subject invented an airplane.
1st source is Business Standard which is rejecting the false claim following the news of "a film on Talpade's efforts, called Hawaizaada, directed by Vibhu Puri, will release later this month".[14] 2nd source is New Republic, which is also dedicated to debunk only the disputed claim, was also created after "Bollywood film Hawaizaada, released a few weeks after Bodas’s paper was presented".[15] 3rd source is Open The Magazine which is also rejecting the false claim and was created after the "Bollywood film on the subject, Hawaizaada, releases this week."[16] The subject is not notable and has inherited little notability from the movie. Any coverage before this movie was not more than a rejection in passing mention when it comes to coverage in reliable sources. Editorkamran (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HISTRS is an essay, and in any case refers more to contemporary news coverage; retrospective news coverage in reliable sources is quite acceptable for determining notability. The sources I presented discuss the historical (or ahistorical) narrative on its own merits; the movie may have drawn attention to it, but the myth-making existed before the movie did. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about an article on the myth itself? JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "the myth-making existed before the movie did" but the coverage to that "myth-making", apart from passing mention, was provided only by poor quality sources in violation of WP:FRINGE as already analyzed above. They cannot be used for establishing WP:GNG. Editorkamran (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we have an article on "spurious Vedic-based claims of powered flight" where the more detailed debunking would be better suited? Or even a "Hindutva science disinformation campaign" general page? JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Not really. It exists at Hindutva#Ahistorical premises, separatism. Specific examples wouldn't be needed because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Editorkamran (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: There are some places where disinformation and pseudoscience are discussed. The issue is that for any such article to remain reasonable in scope, it cannot delve into detail into specific events; moreover, sources covering the entire topic do not investigate individual instances in detail. There is a specific ahistorical narrative here that has been debunked, and the entirety has received substantial coverage. I believe due weight is better served by a detailed article on a small topic, with summaries and passing mentioned elsewhere as necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 maybe this would be better as a page on the "event" or the myth, rather than on the person? JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: I would have no objection to such a reframing; minus a couple of biographical sentences that really aren't terribly important, it'd be the same content. Titling it as a biography is so much easier though; what would you call it? Talpade heavier-than-air flight myth? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: I think you are looking for Claims to the first powered flight. There is no mention of this subject there thus it is clearly possible to ultimately merge the needful details to that article at "Other claims" section. Editorkamran (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes this book from 2023 is among those already described in the nomination; "subject has received minimal coverage from actual WP:RS only for disputing the idea of his unmanned airplane following the release of the movie Hawaizaada". It is merely citing the fake invention as an example of Hindutva fake history instead of making any biographical coverage of the person. Dympies (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Discuss reliability of sources on reliable sources noticeboard. BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only fact is that Wright brothers are the inventors. Rest of the claims are false. You are saying this article on Talpade is so fringe that it does not need to be mentioned along other false claims but at the same time you are saying it needs separate article when we have articles on both his movie and alternative claims on invention of powered air flight. I don't find sense in your argument. CharlesWain (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admantine123: Not really. This is subject is just an example of Hindutva fake history and earliest mention of this subject comes from Vaimānika Shāstra (written in 1952). The coverage is limited to the claim about his fake invention. Dympies (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category